Skip to main content

About your Search

20100101
20100131
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
and they controlled my blood pressure and everything and does not cost me one time. i could be on medicare but i chose not to progress have been within the day since i have gotten out of the service in 71. but why are all of these test being run? i know it cost money. >> host: they do. testing and that has been a regular theme of yours with the regular habit -- article how to get to the point* where doctors, all on test that they say even are gold-plated? >> yes. your caller hit the button driving the process on the malpractice system which is driven in ways, an example. headaches. one community actually tried to look at how many ct scans in cedar rapids speed 13 for a population of 300,000, we all know this is not necessary. 10,000 were forehead ct scans only a tiny number turned up any abnormal -- abnormality some of them were ordinary headaches. some of it was fear of malpractice and more significant is that we have not established what the process is or a proper a guideline for care for handling the headache so we can do it the right way. we have tens of thousands of unnecessary ct scans that are
. it doesn't cost me a dime. i could be on medicare but i chose not to do it. i've been with the va since i got out of the service since '71. but why are all these tests being run and i know it cost money. >> host: thank you, dean. in fact testing and how much doctors has been a regular theme. here's one headline article, testing, testing, testing and how doctors are calling for a lot of tests they sometimes they say are gold plated more than they need? >> guest: your caller did hit the button which is our malpractice system which is driven in ways -- so let me give you an example. headaches, one community actually trade to look at how many ct scans in cedar rapids iowa they were doing for people. they found they were doing 52,000 ct scans. all of us know this isn't necessary. and 10,000 of them were for head ct scans. only a tiny number ended up turning it up any abnormallity. many of them were just headaches. and a more significant part of it is that we don't -- we have not really established what our process is, our appropriate guideline for care for handling the headache so that we can
for people on medicare and did not pay for it at all. it has a cost of like a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, the medicare drug benefit will, which is about the cost of a health benefit so. these people just have no credibility whatsoever when they complain about deficits. host: your book is about the failure of supply side economics, of reaganomics, as w with a look back to and in chapter two, the triumph of keynesian economics. guest: well, i observed there was a real problem that the existing orthodoxy couldn't handle, the new philosophy, the supply side philosophy came into existence, was implemented, appeared to be successful, and then hence forth, it was applied in every circumstance, whether it was justified or not. so you had kind of a cycle of success and failure. and as i thought about it, i realized the keysnenian economics had gone through exactly the same cycle. it had been implemented in the 1930's, helped end the great depression, but then misapplied in the 1950's and 1960's and gave us inflation. so it seemed there was a similar tree that was interesting, and i tried
a trillion dollars over the next ten years, the medicare drug benefit law, which is about the cost of the health benefit. so these people have no credibility whatsoever. >> host: your book is about the failure of supply-side economics, it starts with a look back at fdr. why did you start there? >> guest: my basic idea was that it observed that supply-side economics had gone through a cycle where there was a real problem that the existing orthodoxy couldn't handle. the new philosophy came into existence, was implement, appeared to be successful and it was applied in every circumstance whether it was successful or not. so it was cycle of success and failure. and realize the canessan economics went through the same cycle. it was imcomplemented in the 1930s, helped end the great decision, and then misapplied in the 1950s and 60s and gave us inflation. so there was a symmetry that was interesting, and then i tried to ask, well, what's going to come next? >> host: that's where i'm going to ask you, what comes next? have we come full circle to an kensyaan economics. >> guest: as i was fin
over the next ten years, the medicare drug benefit will, which is about the cost of the health benefits. so these people just have no credibility whatsoever when they complain about deficits. post ogre book is about this a deli or of supply-side economics as reaganomics as it has been known. starts with a look back to fdr. in a chapter to the triumph of keynesian economics. >> guest: my basic idea was that i had observed the supply-side economics had gone to recycle where there was a real problem that the existing orthodox couldn't handle the new philosophy, the supply-side philosophy, came into existence was implemented come appeared to be successful and then henceforth it was supplied in every circumstance, whether was justified or not. say what kind of a cycle of success and failure. and as i thought about it, i realized that keynesian economics have gone through exactly the same cycle. it had been implemented in 1930's, helped and the great depression, but then was misapplied in the 1950's and 60's and give us inflation. so it seemed to me there was a cemetery here that was interest
't have one. we have a quasisystem. we have medicare and medicaid. half of medicare expenditures, half of all health care expenditures. if you look to those programs basically to put it simply the involve massive subsidization of everybody. the government tries to subsidize everybody in keep the price below what they would pay in the market. what happens is, it is sort of elementary. if you subsidize something you get more of it. went to get more of it you get big explosive demands and eventually the government has to put a cap on that and then you get government rationing. when that happens to get lines and who is going to go to the top of the line? i will tell you who is going to get to the top of the line. we know this. people like me. people have connections, people who are knowledgeable, people who can gain the system. who is going to go to the bottom of the line? poor was virginian so if you want to be there this is not a fair system. now, to do this we will need to talk about what a feasible alternative, what it will market-based insurance will look like for goody will meet to t
and in the '60s to got medicare and medicaid so there have been moments of the history when the people and their desires and their anguish over this situation has broken through and then we got legislation that moved away from the traditional class, upper class legislation of the government. but he is extremely important to understand this conflict of interest between government and us. otherwise you will think, and the young guy going off to war will think bush's interest is the same as mine. it is not. nor is exxon's interest the same as mine. nor-cal burton's the interest the same as mine. no, it is a very important thing to learn i think from history. and when you learn, when you study the history of the united states, you did not see the kind of country that we all learn about when we go to school which is a kind of exultation of america. we are not different by the way from other countries. countries everywhere teach their history in nationalists ways. they are all prideful of their flag in their anthem and hewn know their history in the united states is no different. except we a
s we got medicare and medicaid. so there have been moments in our history when the people and their desires and their anguish over the situation has broken through, and then we got legislation that moved away from the traditional class, upper-class legislation of the government. but it's extremely important to understand this conflict of interest between government and us. otherwise, you would think, and the young guy going off to war while the, well, wish this interest was the same as mine. it's not. no one is excellent interests the same as mine. nor halliburton's interest is the same as mine. know. that's a very important thing to learn. i think from history. and when you learn, when you study the history of the united states, you do not see the kind of country that we all learn about when we go to school, which is a kind of america. we're not different by the way than other country. countries everywhere teach their history and a nationalist way. they are all prideful of their flag and their anthem, and you know, their history. and the united states is no different. exc
, we don't have one. we have a quasi system of medicare and medicaid, half of all government expenditures paid for by the government -- half of health care expenditures. to put it simply they involve massive subsidization of everybody and keep the prius below what they would pay in a market. what happens is is elementary. if you subsidize something you get more of it. once you get more to get big explosion in demand and eventually the government has to put a cap on that and then you get rid of rationing and when that happens you get lines and who is going to go to the top-of-the-line? i will tell you, we know this and have this, people like me with connections, people who are knowledgeable, the king gave the system. will go to the bottom? look at poor west virginians. so if you want to be fair this is not a curse system. now, to do this we would have to talk about what a feasible alternative, real market based insurance would look like. he wanted to talk about that? >> yes please. >> we have to compare two alternative because is not fair to look in a system and say it has a p
have a clause i system of his. we have medicare and medicaid. half of all health care expenditures. if you look at those programs, basic to put us in the, they everybody. and keep the price below what they would pay any market player and what happened to sort of elementary. you subsidize something, get more of the. once you get more of it, you get a big explosion to man. and eventually, the government has to put a cap on that and then you get government rationing. when that happens you get lines. and who is going to go to the top of the line? i will tell you who will go to the top of the line. people like me. people with connection, people who are knowledgeable, people who can game the system. is going to go to the bottom of the line? i live in west virginia. poured west virginians. if you want to be fair, this is not a fair system. now, to do this, we would need to talk about what a feasible alternative, what a real market-based insurance would look like. do you want me to talk about that? >> yes, please. >> we have to compare because it's not fair to just look at one system. just
looming over the social security and medicare systems coming down the road. so it's really questionable whether the u.s. can't afford to fight two wars simultaneously under these revised circumstances. now the u.s. military has backhandedly admitted that it can't win in afghanistan, but hopes the surge will allow it to disrupt and degrade quote unquote the taliban. which really means contain the taliban in urban areas until the afghan security forces are up to speed. but of course all the surge troops will not be in place until the fall of next year, having only nine short months until the withdrawal supposedly begins. the afghan forces are small, corrupt and drug ravaged and it would take much longer than even five years that karzai has testified for them to be able to secure the country by themselves. the problem in afghanistan contrary to what people believe, is that you can't contrast afghanistan. afghanistan has been conquered many times. the problem is of doing it and controlling it, which it really has been. i think that ago probably back to the persian cyrus to find anyone who h
senior citizens and say we really didn't mean it. yes, the bill cuts medicare by by $500 billion, but we really didn't mean it and we have four years in which to fix it. that is, four years in which to replace that $500 billion. and, of course, when that that $500 billion is replaced, if that's the way they decide to go, then we will know that the numbers we are getting out of c.b.o. are completely phony. then we will know that the statement that this bill is revenue neutral is -- is a nonstarter. then we will know that there was never any intention to try to deal with this cost. but suppose future congresses stand firm and say yes, we are going to stand firm in this four-year period. we're going stand firm against the senior citizens who are going to get their medicare benefits cut. and we're going to take th the $500 billion out of medicare. then we will see the promises that are being made around here that there will be no cut in medicare services all disappear. i hear people say, we're not cutting benefits, we're just cutting payments to providers. that statement is being mad
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12